Nah I think you may be right. Religion has a hell of a lot of holes in it, and it is terribly enjoyable to point out faults in it, but it's hard to hate it utterly because people really find solace and joy and other things in it, which is sometimes very important.

That's perfectly right. I'm a stone-cold athiest - I don't believe in a god(s) and I think that organised religion, while it does do some good social works, is laughable. But I think that religion where I live (I'm in Finland although I'm not a Finn myself) is very different - it's Evangelic Lutheranism, which means plain churches and unassuming sermons which don't try to force conversions, and etc.

Now, my wife's a christian, as is her mother who is also a priest. They have never tried to force their beliefs on me or anyone else, and they don't go around parading their beliefs in front of everyone else. In fact, they're perfectly nice, normal people, and I enjoy being with them, and if I hadn't started a romantic relationship with my wife all those years ago, I might never have guessed she was religious! That's what it's supposed to be about. There's no harm in believing something that gives you strength on a personal level - but please don't try to choke me with it.

Pointing out the flaws is always fun and occasionally I do say something which offends my wife's beliefs and we have a bit of an argument about some fine point or other but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter. Faith is a private thing and we are, after it's all said and done, just people who like each other regardless of her beliefs or my lack of them. You Americans ought to get out and look around more often; things aren't always as they might seem back home.

As for Tat's beliefs... I think it's impossible to tell. I would mock my own beliefs (or lack of them) in other things, and my wife has no trouble with mocking the strict, literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact, she enjoys a good South Park or Simpsons where (organised) religion is ridiculed and debased, because nobody is mocking the right to personal belief, Tat most of all. If you look closely, all are mocked equally - Christian, Athiest and non-categorised - but all of them retain their beliefs and are happy that, if nothing else, they do believe. From the happy angels to Li'l Evil who patiently waits for the Devil's return. They are all mocked by others, but hey, who in this world isn't? I think that's the point. But they are internally consistent.

It still doesn't provide any clues, self-mocking or not, regarding Tat's own beliefs.

Religion in the plural is obviously different doctinrs/methodologies/ideologies, such as Christianity, Islam, Hindiusm, Buddhism, and the like.

Religion in the singular however is an individual's relationship with that which is most important to him or her.

I don't understand why people have to keep defining religion in such empirical terms as: "This is a christian religion" blah blah blah. I get tired of it, and it's annoying.

And you can pull out dictionary.com and all your 'semantic' crap, but my metaphor there works, and it's been working ever since my professor wrote it on the board a few months ago.

And when you think about it, don't we, in some way or other, worship whatever it is that's most important to us? I mean, I hate to reduce the meaning to: "Wow, that's important to me" ... as opposed to: "I do it because I HAVE to" ... but in a way, "I do it because I HAVE to" is only done because whatever it is that such a person who "does" it fears, it's certainly important enough to them to "do" it ...

And by "do it," I mean practicing religion.

People iwll look at me and tell me to go to Church with them, and I'll wave it off, saying, "No, that's okay." But then you have the dangerous Christians who know how to evangelize, who decide to bring up, "But how do you know what's right, or how do you know how to compose yourself, or how do you know about God?"

And then, I have to look at them for a moment and smile,
"Look around, can't you feel it?" And I pick two flowers, and I hold on in each hand, and hold them together, and I say, "You see this? This flower, and that one?"

And they'll look at me really crazy like ...

And I'll just say,

"This is God. I don't need a book to tell me that."

I seem to recall the Buddha [Siddhartha] speaking to Malukyaputta, explaining to him why he never addressed the Eternity of the World, the Infinite of the World, if the Soul was of the Body or something else ... or whether or not one who attained Nirvana would live or die ...

And he replied, "It is as ... a man had been wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions, his relatives, and kinsfolk, were to procure for him a physician ... and the sick man were to say, "I will not have this arrow taken out until I have learnt whether the man who wounded me belonged to the warrior caste, or to the Brahmin caste, or to the agricultural caste, or to the menial caste."

Or ... again he were to say, "I will not have this arrow taken out until I have learnt the name of the man who wounded me, and to what clan he belongs."

...

It goes on ...

But in essence, what the Buddha was trying to say was that none of that mattered, all that mattered was realizing that the Soul is trapped in suffering ...

The same idea is in Hinduism [not surprisingly], as the soul is trapped in Samsara, endless revolution around Maya ... the illusion ...

Not to mention that in Christianity [more modern], Man is trapped under the bindings of Sin ... Judeo thought was that atonement through offerings spelled out in the Original Covenant could be made, and Christianity is a modification of that thought, through the fulfillment of the Covenant by the Second Man, Christ, who more or less paid the penalty of Sin for all of humanity, so we could all 'rise again' and properly choose God or not ...

More or less, freeing us from the bondage of Sin that holds us down, so we can decide whether or not to be the good little fleshly beings we were made to be ... and that sounded a bit sarcastic, and I'm sorry.

If you look at Islam, there are ... at best, SEVERAL modifications of this thought, yet they ignore Christ as being perfect enought to serve as a proper sacrifice, because they don't really see it that way [and you have to think, Mohhamed didn't exactly meet the BEST Christians when he was putting together the Q'uran ... ] but more or less, Islam includes many regulations and different modes of penance, just in case you 'screw up' as it were ...

Catholicism is similar, such as a certain number of prayers, different things to meditate on, and the like.

All in all, religions aren't exactly BAD, it's just what people turn them into. The basic idea is the same: Escape.

You really could just brand all religions as a form of escapism, appealing to a higher deity because they can't really deal with reality, and yet, somehow, I don't see what's exactly bad about that.

Reality is reality, and yet, Judaism, Islam ... Hinduism [especially], Taoism ... basic culturally diverse religions ... all of them have the same idea, that God is the only TRUE Reality ... the only Thing [whatever it is] that has a right to say: "I am that I am" ... rather, the Being who doesn't need to try to be, but simply IS.

THAT is what I view as God, religions in the plural aside.

The only thing I want to interject [for real] is the idea that there is no God, merely because Organized Religions have given God a bad name [or actually, a name at all].

Because I DO believe in God, I'm going to say that most religions are just different cultures trying to make sense of the General Revelation of the Supreme Divine ... and so, you go to a different region, you get different interpretations, but the base principals are there. ... remember, Religion is just Man's way of trying to give a name to God, so that he can be on familiar terms with God and be like, "Yo ... God, dude ... let's chill."

Because the goal of escaping this reality is really to align yourself with the True Reality, and to return to God.

So, in short:

Don't blame God for what people do in the name of God, because really, they don't have a damn clue what they hell they're doing.

I don't understand why people have to keep defining religion in such empirical terms as: "This is a christian religion" blah blah blah. I get tired of it, and it's annoying.

Because categorizing things are an integral part of how humans understand the world.

veria wrote:

And you can pull out dictionary.com and all your 'semantic' crap, but my metaphor there works, and it's been working ever since my professor wrote it on the board a few months ago.

You didn't offer a metaphor.

veria wrote:

And when you think about it, don't we, in some way or other, worship whatever it is that's most important to us? I mean, I hate to reduce the meaning to: "Wow, that's important to me" ... as opposed to: "I do it because I HAVE to" ... but in a way, "I do it because I HAVE to" is only done because whatever it is that such a person who "does" it fears, it's certainly important enough to them to "do" it ...

And by "do it," I mean practicing religion.

You fail at being general. "I do it because I HAVE to" isn't a part of every religion. Neither are fears. You kinda ended up saying nothing here.

veria wrote:

People iwll look at me and tell me to go to Church with them, and I'll wave it off, saying, "No, that's okay." But then you have the dangerous Christians who know how to evangelize, who decide to bring up, "But how do you know what's right, or how do you know how to compose yourself, or how do you know about God?"

Wow. You are so spiritual. I bet spirituality just constantly oozes out of you because you've got so much of it. Must suck to have to wash your sheets every night.

veria wrote:

All in all, religions aren't exactly BAD, it's just what people turn them into. The basic idea is the same: Escape.

You really could just brand all religions as a form of escapism, appealing to a higher deity because they can't really deal with reality, and yet, somehow, I don't see what's exactly bad about that.

You could brand religions as a form of escapism, if you were interested in saying something quite remarkably stupid._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

Why do you bother attacking?
I offer a few points for discussion, and you just focus on knocking them down. Absolutely brilliant.

So fine, I used metaphor as a generalizing term, because I like to do that. Whatever.

And I didn't make any claims of spirituality, sheesh. I just said I know there's a God, I didn't say anything along the lines of "Wow, I'm spiritual, I OOZE with it!"

And obviously, I didn't include all the religions, just the general ones that I've encounted with the generally 'religious' people I encounter. So I don't experience as much life as you do. Sue me.

And you don't like how I frame my thought processes? Get the fuck over it. I don't think like you. Bleh.

And the: "I don't understand why blah blah blah" was a rhetorical statement, to bring about a point. Sheesh, take everything so damned literal.

And, I said "I SUPPOSE you could brand blah blah blah" ... didn't actually say that I did, but while I'm thinking about it, why don't you explain why such a thing is stupid, instead of just expecting the aura of your 'boss refute' to suddenly prove that point.

So fine, I used metaphor as a generalizing term, because I like to do that. Whatever.

There was actually no comparison of any kind. You didn't "generalize," you used the word in a way that meant nothing. Reread your post.

veria wrote:

And I didn't make any claims of spirituality, sheesh. I just said I know there's a God, I didn't say anything along the lines of "Wow, I'm spiritual, I OOZE with it!"

You presented your story as though you'd achieved some kind of brilliant victory over your witless tormenters who dared to ask you to go to church. You presented "This is God" as though it was revolutionary and deep rather than so much valley-girl spiritual veneer. Did you crib that from Dr. Phil?

veria wrote:

And obviously, I didn't include all the religions, just the general ones that I've encounted with the generally 'religious' people I encounter. So I don't experience as much life as you do. Sue me.

This isn't about a different level of experience. You were trying to make some kind of point (I assume) about religion-in-general, and it just didn't work, because your generalization was broken.

veria wrote:

And you don't like how I frame my thought processes? Get the fuck over it. I don't think like you. Bleh.

You called people dangerous for asking questions. If that's how your judgement works, I am happy that you don't think like me.

veria wrote:

And the: "I don't understand why blah blah blah" was a rhetorical statement, to bring about a point. Sheesh, take everything so damned literal.

No shit. That doesn't make it any less stupid. Do you not understand how getting annoyed at people for using descriptive words is moronic?

You did. You clearly stated that the basic idea of religions is escape from reality. That is what you said. Reread your post.

veria wrote:

but while I'm thinking about it, why don't you explain why such a thing is stupid, instead of just expecting the aura of your 'boss refute' to suddenly prove that point.

You are dismissing billions of people's religious beliefs as a need to escape from reality. Unless you have direct access to the minds of billions of people, you simply cannot do such a thing.

And I'm done there. If you can't see why that is stupid, I don't want to waste more time talking to you._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

If you look at Islam, there are ... at best, SEVERAL modifications of this thought, yet they ignore Christ as being perfect enought to serve as a proper sacrifice, because they don't really see it that way [and you have to think, Mohhamed didn't exactly meet the BEST Christians when he was putting together the Q'uran ... ] but more or less, Islam includes many regulations and different modes of penance, just in case you 'screw up' as it were ...

So youre saying that because Muhammad " didnt exactly meet the BEST Christians " when he was "putting together" the Quran, Islamic thought "ignores" Jesus of Nazareth as being perfect enough to serve as a sacrifice that would free man from his "Bondage of Sin"

Ah, I see. So if Muhammad had met the " BEST Christians " ( who exactly would that be?Jesus himself? What was wrong with the Arab Christians during Muhammads time? They didnt do enough evangelism? They spoke Arabic and rode camels?) then he wouldnt have penned what is little more than a shameless modification of Judeo-Christian thought , minus the bits that make it Judeo-Christian-ish.

Hm....1.2 - 1.5 billion of the worlds population who are not Christian just because one guy didnt meet their 'proper' representatives.

Samarik ate it all during the last God thread._________________bi-chromaticism is the extraordinary belief that there exists only two options
each polar opposite to each other
where one is completely superior to the other.